You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Acupuncture for Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM), March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1155/2018/4806734 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Suzi S. Y. Mansu, Haiying Liang, Shefton Parker, Meaghan E. Coyle, Kaiyi Wang, Anthony L. Zhang, Xinfeng Guo, Chuanjian Lu, Charlie C. L. Xue |
| Abstract |
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the current best available evidence of the efficacy and safety of acupuncture and related therapies for acne vulgaris. Eleven English and Chinese databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acne vulgaris compared to pharmacotherapies, no treatment, and sham or placebo acupuncture. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software. Twelve RCTs were included in the qualitative review and 10 RCTs were included in meta-analysis. Methodological quality of trials was generally low. The chance of achieving ≥30% change in lesion count in the acupuncture group was no different to the pharmacotherapy group (RR: 1.07 [95% CI 0.98, 1.17]; I2 = 8%) and ≥50% change in lesion count in the acupuncture group was not statistically different to the pharmacotherapy group (RR: 1.07 [95% CI 0.98, 1.17]; I2 = 50%). While caution should be exercised due to quality of the included studies, acupuncture and auricular acupressure were not statistically different to guideline recommended treatments but were with fewer side effects and may be a treatment option. Future trials should address the methodological weaknesses and meet standard reporting requirements stipulated in STRICTA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Philippines | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 114 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 57 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 58 | 51% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2023.
All research outputs
#5,303,796
of 25,707,225 outputs
Outputs from Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM)
#1,599
of 9,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,071
of 351,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM)
#23
of 190 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,707,225 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 190 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.